What are the chances that our universe would be ‘just right’ so life could exist?The article starts off by saying, However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with.

Some quotes from some agnostic scientists:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

The writer goes into more detail to put the ratio of electrons: protons in perspective by saying, One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037.

strong nuclear force constantif larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistryif smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

weak nuclear force constantif larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossibleif smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

gravitational force constantif larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistryif smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

Is this proof of Intelligent Design? No. However, when you look at all the other numbers and the fine tuning of the universe, what other explanation do you have? No design behind any of it?

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

It has everything to do with the OP. It is a perfect example of the exact same logic being mis-applied in the exact same way. Species are "fine-tuned" to their environments the same way water is "fine-tuned" to it's container, not the other way around. The idea that the universe, not a particular environment, but the basic properties of existence are fitted to "life" is absurd for the simple reason that there is no one environment that supports "life". A fish can breathe under water - you can't. A germ can survive temperatures that you can't survive. Creatures at the bottom of the ocean can survive a thousand times the atmospheric pressure we are experiencing right now. Take every animal in a desert and put it in the arctic and they will all die. Take every animal in the arctic and put them in the desert and they will all die.

"The universe" is not tailored to them, "the universe" will kill life as easily as it will allow it to thrive. There is no one magic set of conditions for life because there is no one singular kind of life.

It has everything to do with the OP. It is a perfect example of the exact same logic being mis-applied in the exact same way. Species are "fine-tuned" to their environments the same way water is "fine-tuned" to it's container, not the other way around. The idea that the universe, not a particular environment, but the basic properties of existence are fitted to "life" is absurd for the simple reason that there is no one environment that supports "life". A fish can breathe under water - you can't. A germ can survive temperatures that you can't survive. Creatures at the bottom of the ocean can survive a thousand times the atmospheric pressure we are experiencing right now. Take every animal in a desert and put it in the arctic and they will all die. Take every animal in the arctic and put them in the desert and they will all die. "The universe" is not tailored to them, "the universe" will kill life as easily as it will allow it to thrive. There is no one magic set of conditions for life because there is no one singular kind of life.

Who ever said that there was a singluar kind of life? Who ever said that species or water was fine tuned (for environments and containers respectively? We say that the laws of nature and the constants of the universe are fine tuned. Ergo strawman fallacy.

Again I don't see how this has anything to do with the OP, please be more direct with a little less artistic license.

Your question makes no sense. I never said that someone said that, I said that the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for "life" is absurd because there is not one singular kind of life, but many forms of life with mutually exclusive environmental needs.

"Who ever said that species or water was fine tuned (for environments and containers respectively?"

I did, learn to read.

"We say that the laws of nature and the constants of the universe are fine tuned. Ergo strawman fallacy."

In no way did I strawman anybody, your reply is nonsensical.

"Again I don't see how this has anything to do with the OP, please be more direct with a little less artistic license. "

It has everything to do with the OP. It is a perfect example of the exact same logic being mis-applied in the exact same way. Species are "fine-tuned" to their environments the same way water is "fine-tuned" to it's container, not the other way around. The idea that the universe, not a particular environment, but the basic properties of existence are fitted to "life" is absurd for the simple reason that there is no one environment that supports "life". A fish can breathe under water - you can't. A germ can survive temperatures that you can't survive. Creatures at the bottom of the ocean can survive a thousand times the atmospheric pressure we are experiencing right now. Take every animal in a desert and put it in the arctic and they will all die. Take every animal in the arctic and put them in the desert and they will all die.

"The universe" is not tailored to them, "the universe" will kill life as easily as it will allow it to thrive. There is no one magic set of conditions for life because there is no one singular kind of life.

Really... I suggest you read the bolded parts... I'm a tad worried since you've forgotten what you wrote, (even when its digitally printed here for you to re-read if needed).

Really... I suggest you read the bolded parts... I'm a tad worried since you've forgotten what you wrote, (even when its digitally printed here for you to re-read if needed).

I didn't forget or misrepresent anything. Me saying "x is true because y is false" is not the same as me saying "you said y is false". I did not say that anybody else said anything and your strawman claim is totally random.

I didn't forget or misrepresent anything. Me saying "x is true because y is false" is not the same as me saying "you said y is false". I did not say that anybody else said anything and your strawman claim is totally random.

Mental Gymnastics

Did I ever say anything was false?

You said

""The universe" is not tailored to them, "the universe" will kill life as easily as it will allow it to thrive. There is no one magic set of conditions for life because there is no one singular kind of life."- post #4

I replied

"Who ever said that there was a singluar kind of life?"- post #5

You replied

"Your question makes no sense. I never said that someone said that, I said that the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for "life" is absurd because there is not one singular kind of life, but many forms of life with mutually exclusive environmental needs."- post #6

I asked you who ever said about a singular form of life since that was not being discussed, and it seems you were trying to rebutt the point as if someone had made it

However even with the diversity it does nothing to solve the fine tunning argument.

Things like the pull of gravity, the weight of hydrogen, etc are all so finely tuned that if they were off by (something like) 0.00000000000000001 then there would be no universe, ergo no life. So having lots of forms of life has no weight to it when there is no universe for said life to live.

"I asked you who ever said about a singular form of life since that was not being discussed, and it seems you were trying to rebutt the point as if someone had made it"

I was not saying that, and I'm sorry if I was not clear. I was just saying that there is no one set of properties "life" needs because there is no one set form of "life". Life in it's most basic sense is just a self-copying pattern and that could hypothetically exist in any universe. If you add up all the space we can live in the universe it would be an unbelievably small percent of it, something like a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent, even if every solar system had a planet capable of sustaining human life (because the area of just a solar system is so vast and we can't survive in open space, and the distance between solar systems is muuuuch bigger).

"However even with the diversity it does nothing to solve the fine tunning argument. Things like the pull of gravity, the weight of hydrogen, etc are all so finely tuned that if they were off by (something like) 0.00000000000000001 then there would be no universe, ergo no life. So having lots of forms of life has no weight to it when there is no universe for said life to live."

I am extremely skeptical of two things - one, that we currently know enough about quantum mechanics to be able to predict accurately what the universe would have been like with different initial conditions (or to even know what those conditions were in our own universe). I honestly don't think science is even close to either of those. And two, I doubt very much that the logic and math behind a statement like that is going to be anything but gibberish to anyone in this forum including myself. I once read a quote from someone who said something like "I am an engineer, which means I can mathematically prove I don't exist", lol. Math and statistics are irrelevant, what matters is whether the method of generating the figures is accurate to reality. And I don't know enough about physics or math to seriously evaluate a claim like that. I would need to be an expert mathematician to check the homework of whoever made the claim in other words.

I think creationists latch onto statements like that because if it were accurate it would be a boon to their belief system. But if someone comes out with some figure saying the odds there is a god is one in a billion billion billion should I just latch onto it even if their math is nonsense to me? I would be skeptical of that claim too.

"I asked you who ever said about a singular form of life since that was not being discussed, and it seems you were trying to rebutt the point as if someone had made it"

I was not saying that, and I'm sorry if I was not clear. I was just saying that there is no one set of properties "life" needs because there is no one set form of "life". Life in it's most basic sense is just a self-copying pattern and that could hypothetically exist in any universe. If you add up all the space we can live in the universe it would be an unbelievably small percent of it, something like a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent, even if every solar system had a planet capable of sustaining human life (because the area of just a solar system is so vast and we can't survive in open space, and the distance between solar systems is muuuuch bigger).

"However even with the diversity it does nothing to solve the fine tunning argument. Things like the pull of gravity, the weight of hydrogen, etc are all so finely tuned that if they were off by (something like) 0.00000000000000001 then there would be no universe, ergo no life. So having lots of forms of life has no weight to it when there is no universe for said life to live."

I am extremely skeptical of two things - one, that we currently know enough about quantum mechanics to be able to predict accurately what the universe would have been like with different initial conditions (or to even know what those conditions were in our own universe). I honestly don't think science is even close to either of those. And two, I doubt very much that the logic and math behind a statement like that is going to be anything but gibberish to anyone in this forum including myself. I once read a quote from someone who said something like "I am an engineer, which means I can mathematically prove I don't exist", lol. Math and statistics are irrelevant, what matters is whether the method of generating the figures is accurate to reality. And I don't know enough about physics or math to seriously evaluate a claim like that. I would need to be an expert mathematician to check the homework of whoever made the claim in other words.

I think creationists latch onto statements like that because if it were accurate it would be a boon to their belief system. But if someone comes out with some figure saying the odds there is a god is one in a billion billion billion should I just latch onto it even if their math is nonsense to me? I would be skeptical of that claim too.

No problem

Yes there are, one example-

"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. [9] "

"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. [9] "

I am using the same statements Stephen Hawking has made about the fine tuning of the universe, books have been written about this stuff and its well established.

What I said still stands, though I would like to add that many of these quotes come from physicists or mathematicians, not biologists for the simple reason that biologists know life adapts to the environment not the other way around. It is like one fish turning to the other and saying "of course nothing can live on land, there's no water to breathe!".

I guess it goes back to what you accept about science, but from the scientific view of the development of life a change in the environment allows a change in life. The invention of nylon allowed bacteria to adapt to be able to digest nylon the same way oxygen-breathing life like us only came about after other organisms like cyanobacteria and later plants began giving off oxygen as a waste product. And fish eggs developed hard shells and a placenta in the transition from sea to land. And mammals became hairy and warm-blooded when they moved from the desert to colder climates and had to stay warm. So it's not this one magical environment that got life to where it is, it was an ever-changing environment with new predators and diseases and temperatures around every bend in the road forcing life to constantly adapt.

2. hough I would like to add that many of these quotes come from physicists or mathematicians, not biologists for the simple reason that biologists know life adapts to the environment not the other way around. It is like one fish turning to the other and saying "of course nothing can live on land, there's no water to breathe!".

3. I guess it goes back to what you accept about science, but from the scientific view of the development of life a change in the environment allows a change in life.

4. The invention of nylon allowed bacteria to adapt to be able to digest nylon the same way oxygen-breathing life like us only came about after other organisms like cyanobacteria and later plants began giving off oxygen as a waste product.

5. And fish eggs developed hard shells and a placenta in the transition from sea to land.

6. And mammals became hairy and warm-blooded when they moved from the desert to colder climates and had to stay warm.

7. So it's not this one magical environment that got life to where it is, it was an ever-changing environment with new predators and diseases and temperatures around every bend in the road forcing life to constantly adapt.

1. Perhaps in your imagination, the quote I gave and the many many many more I can quote all refute your point.

2. The physicists are the ones you want to quote when you are discussing the fine tunning of the universe, since physics deals with the mechanics of the universe and the fine tunning argument stems from the fine tunning of the physics of the universe. Biologists would know little more than a layman, therefore you need to realise that a Biologist is not the be all end all of truth.

The fine tunning argument is not about adaption, its about the physics of the universe to bring abouta) a universe workable energy in the universec) habitable planets in the universed) molelular laws and constants that allow life to originate and thrive

With point d its more refering to how life works at a cellular level, actually beyond that, at a molecular level at the level of atoms and how they work together to allow molecules to work. This has got nothing to do with species adaption since if life cannot originate (or stay alive) then there can be no adaption since everything is dead.....

3. This is a view, it is not the scientific view. It is the secular view but that doesn't make it scientific. I ask you how is it "scientific" when it doesn't stand on actual evidence. When you state "development of life" I am assuming the origin of life, you do realise that the secular view defies the law of biogenesis, which is scientific, meaning that this is not scientific since it defies and established natural law.

4. Huh we cannot digest nylon. The ability to digest nylon is very very similar to an established enzyme in the citric acid cycle that digests citrate

This article sums it up very well, it shows that the change came about via a loss of information, (loss of a repressor), which is not what the evolutionist claim, they state that it was a gain in information.

5. Really care to give evidence? Stories are not evidence

6. Really? Care to give evidence? Stories are not evidence

7. Firstly nice story, now if you want this to be deemed scientific go out and get some evidence for it... Stories are not evidence (despite what Dawkins thinks)

Did anyone ever propose that? Its very similar to the question I asked you before

"Who ever said that there was a singluar kind of life?"

Though this time its

Who ever said that there was a singular environment for life to live in?

This is a view, it is not the scientific view. It is the secular view but that doesn't make it scientific. I ask you how is it "scientific" when it doesn't stand on actual evidence.

Yes, it is the scientific view. Lets cut through the BS. Tell me at what point you will accept that the science is "in" on evolution vs creation. Newsweek did a poll some years back and asked not just biologists, but scientists in all fields of earth and life scientists about their views on creationism. 99.85% said that they give "no credence" to "creation science". 99.85%. When will the science be in? When that figure is 99.86%? 99.95%? Because when the difference between the opinion of atheist scientists and christian scientists and muslim scientists and hindu scientists etc is around a tenth of one percent it becomes very obvious that pretending evolution is the "atheist" position and christians are a poor, downtrodden, persecuted majority is a rationalization, not reality. Yes, evolution is in every possible sense the scientific view, and creationism is in every possible sense not the scientific view. Which is why despite my asking several times nobody can give me an example of one single creationism experiment that has the potential to disprove creationism, ie actual, real creation "science". Yet when I'm asked to give examples of evolution science that are testable by people like you and calypsis4 who claim there is no evidence, you refuse to look at it and then repeat the claim that no evidence exists and demand to see more.

You are simply lying to yourselves and everyone else. See no evidence, hear no evidence speak no evidence.

3. Tell me at what point you will accept that the science is "in" on evolution vs creation.

4. Newsweek did a poll some years back and asked not just biologists, but scientists in all fields of earth and life scientists about their views on creationism. 99.85% said that they give "no credence" to "creation science". 99.85%.

5. When will the science be in? When that figure is 99.86%? 99.95%?

6. Because when the difference between the opinion of atheist scientists and christian scientists and muslim scientists and hindu scientists etc is around a tenth of one percent it becomes very obvious that pretending evolution is the "atheist" position and christians are a poor, downtrodden, persecuted majority is a rationalization, not reality.

7. Yes, evolution is in every possible sense the scientific view,

8. and creationism is in every possible sense not the scientific view.

9. Which is why despite my asking several times nobody can give me an example of one single creationism experiment that has the potential to disprove creationism, ie actual, real creation "science".

10. Yet when I'm asked to give examples of evolution science that are testable by people like you and calypsis4 who claim there is no evidence, you refuse to look at it and then repeat the claim that no evidence exists and demand to see more.

11. You are simply lying to yourselves and everyone else. See no evidence, hear no evidence speak no evidence.

Care to reply to the entire post lest you do what you accuse others of doing and "ignore evidence"...

1. Really, oh well you must be correct I mean if you think it is then thats all the evidence we need to make it science yes? (As I have said to you, go research the scientific method, now have a look and see if personal opinion counts as scientific evidence, let me know how you go).

2. That is what I have been trying to do this entire time....

3. Show me some science and I will tell you if I accept it or not.

4. Argumentum ad populum, (logical fallacy), a wise man once said "what is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right".. Therefore you poll has no relevance here. Additionally opinions are not science (nor are the opinions of the majority) so as I asked in point one please research the scientific method.

Furthermore I'd like a link to this poll since I am skeptical of its %

5. Even if the figure was 100% that doesn't mean its true, as per argumentum ad populum...

6. No idea how this makes it scientific

7. Really... Because you say it is so? (Yet again you display the tell-tale qualities of an evolutionist... inability to respond to posts points (which I'll get into in a bit) and the idea that somehow because you claim something suddenly its true... If that isn't magic I don't know what is.

8. Again this is your opinion, you are entitled to it, however it doesn't support such a sweeping statement.

9. Not what we are discussing so this is a red herring

10. Hang on, debunking your "evidence" is not ignoring it.. We ask for more because we have demonstrated how inept it is

11. Lol, yet again the pot calling the kettle black... You have demonstrated no logical or coherent response to the post you attempted to respond to. You were unable to cite any evidence from science or logic that the secular view is indeed scientific.

Instead you gave opinion based arguments and a logical fallacy but that doesn't show that the secular view is indeed scientific, it merely demonstrates that YOU THINK it is.. There is a big difference between the two.